warhammer40kfanonfandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Fox the Creator
....? Ave Dominus Nox! (talk) 01:30, May 3, 2013 (UTC) Apparently its a humor article... Ave Dominus Nox! (talk) 01:48, May 3, 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I don't find any of this funny...at all. Ave Dominus Nox! (talk) 15:50, May 4, 2013 (UTC) I hope the purge of articles includes those listed as funny, but really an attempt to boast the ego of a character symbolising someones personality. This is painfully bad. Imposter101 (talk) 18:39, May 4, 2013 (UTC) I agree, it seems to be abusing the humor template in order to side-step the rules. Yet, it fails to meet the "it actually has to be comical" clause. Judgement: It will be stricken during the purge. Cal XDMy Talk 19:01, May 4, 2013 (UTC) How areBloodletters acting as maids a form of irony? Do you understand what irony is? Imposter101 (talk) 08:50, May 5, 2013 (UTC) imposter. yes i understand irony quite well, and yes the bloodletter thing is irony, i will explain to you now. a bloodletter is made for one purpose. to kill, and spill blood. they hate the daemons of slaanesh alot. the irony is this. how is a bloodletter going to kill, and spill blood, with a feather duster? or a rag? they can't. plus they would be forced to sing the most slaaneshy song ever, while doing so. that is the irony i'm portraying. if you still don't understand look up all the forms, of irony. and then look of the norse god thor. it should tell you about the time he had to wear a dress. this is all i have to say on your question, also i wouldn't put something in there if i didn't know what it was, or meantFox2013 (talk) 09:27, May 5, 2013 (UTC)fox2013 That's not irony, or funny. In fact, why has this not been purged? Imposter101 (talk) 09:47, May 5, 2013 (UTC) Why does Fox hide children? What's that supposed to mean? Imposter101 (talk) 10:02, May 7, 2013 (UTC) it means that he is not suppose to have them, because his leader, doesn't like"pets", also children remind him of the old days, and will elaborate on it later. any other questions you have,(i don't mean crap like- why hasn't this been purgged yet, or- why does is the quality low, etc. that is worthless to me, and will be ignored. i only want constructive, understanding criticism.)just put them on the talk page, and i will answer as soon, as i can.Fox2013 (talk) 20:12, May 7, 2013 (UTC)fox2013 As always, you avoid the fact that this suffers from the same problems as all other articles, and are unable to tell what is constructive and what is not. --Imposter101 (talk) 20:24, May 7, 2013 (UTC) i grow tired of these conversations, i had tried to get you to understand many times. i tried explaining it to you, i tried debating, i tried giving you an idea, and i even sent you a link detailing it, but you have refused all, and i know very well, what constructive criticism is, and what it looks like, and i do not appreciate you insulting my intelligence on the matter.I also know that you will most likely reply negatively to this, and would problaby give me reasons on why i'm wrong.This article is, as i stated many times, NOT FINISHED, i have been civil, and tried to get you to understand what i'm telling you, but you refused to try, while i have tried the advice given to me, and on a side note, your question was very late, i think i'm going to have to leave an explanation page in the talk, or the summerary. this is not an attack on anyone, its just my view point, and that is all i have to say.Fox2013 (talk) 21:18, May 7, 2013 (UTC)fox2013 Here's the problem Fox, your articles have, as the community has stated many times, A LOT OF PROBLEMS. Furthermore, you dug your own grave with the complaints you stated above. As we ''have tried to be civil, and 'we 'have tried to get you to understand what ''we're ''telling you, yet 'you 'have failed to listen to us. It doesn't matter if this article (or any others you have created) aren't finished, you've been given plenty of time to fix the issues we have stated, be them diction, formatting, and the overall topic of the article, yet all you seem to do is argue with us and give us the same excuse that you don't have time to fix these problems or that the article isn't finished yet. However, you somehow have time to complain to us and stay in chat when you could easily be fixing the problems. I, and many others, have had this happen before, whether it be on this wiki or not, and we do not take kindly to people that procrastinate such serious issues with their articles. That is all I'' have to say. Ave Dominus Nox! (talk) 21:49, May 7, 2013 (UTC) Fox, don't try and make it out as if I'm insulting your intelligence. Since the beginning, others have tried to help with constructive feed back, but people are tired of this now. Tired of your articles quality. You've ignored everyone and attribute everything to a snide counter attack. Stop ignoring us and let us help, instead of digging your own grave. --Imposter101 (talk) 21:55, May 7, 2013 (UTC) When, i was young, i was ridiculed by, those who were suppose to be my comrads, but have turned on me, thus i had no problem burning them to cinders, and peeing on the ashes from the article Fox, your scaring me now with the feels..... --Imposter101 (talk) 22:56, May 7, 2013 (UTC) Fox, dude, this is a poiintless fight. For one it is clear that nobody is going to acknowledge the article. When the reaction to an article is this harsh then that's a clear sign that there is something wrong. Besides this really doesn't make sense as an article. Wouldn't it be more logical to have all this on your profile? Regardless of this all that your agruing has done so far is made you enemies. A piece of wisdom for you. Surrender is not always defeat. I am your master! At your service. (talk) 23:20, May 7, 2013 (UTC)